Galen Strawson's Argument Essay

Strawson points out in premise two of his basic argument that in order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be Causa Sui, in a certain mental aspect. Causa Sui is the belief that something is the cause of itself. Which he later says is impossible to be the cause of oneself. If his basic argument relied on the validity of premise two then it would be impossible

Over the course of time, in the dominion of philosophy, there has been a constant debate involving two major concepts: free will and determinism. Are our paths in life pre-determined? Do we have the ability to make decisions by using our freedom of will? While heavily subjective questions that have been answered many different authors, philosophers, etc., two authors in particular have answered these questions very similarly. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher from the 18th century, argues in his essay “Of Liberty and Necessity” that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that they can both be accepted at the same time without being logically incorrect. Alike Hume, 20th century author Harry G. Frankfurt concludes in his essay “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” that the two major concepts are compatible. These two authors are among the most famous of Compatibilists (hence the fact that they believe free will and determinism are compatible ideas) in philosophical history. The question that then arises in the realm of compatibilism particularly, is one dealing with moral responsibility: If our paths in life are not totally pre-determined, and we have the ability to make decisions willingly (using free will), then how do we deem an individual morally responsible for a given decision? Frankfurt reaches the conclusion that we are held morally responsible regardless of

essentially asserts that the nuances of one's personality are not generated from within, but rather

For example, Strawson believes true moral responsibility is when someone is completely responsible for their actions. Through the story of heaven and hell, he reveals the idea that true moral responsibility is when it would be just to punish someone to eternal torment in hell and reward others with eternal bliss in heaven. However, he states that no one is completely responsible for their actions because they aren’t the cause of themselves; since one didn’t bring themselves into being, and isn’t responsible for the way they are (at least in certain mental aspects). For instance, for one to choose to be the way one is, they would’ve had to exist already and be in possession of the principle of choice; however, since there is no completion of the limitless succession of choices of principles of choice, then there is no self-determinism. Overall, considering the Basic Argument states that nothing can be the cause of itself (causa sui), and true moral responsibility is dependent on causa sui, then there can’t be true moral

In this essay I will analyze Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument. I will first outline his main premise of the Basic Argument and then I will examine one of his criticisms. Specifically, I will be looking into his third premise, “But you can’t be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all”. I am defending Strawson’s argument that you are indeed not responsible for your actions. I will be focusing on genetics and upbringing’s in order to support Strawson’s reasoning. Due to the genetics individuals inherit and the environment they are brought up in, it is difficult to go against Strawson as he provides valid evidence that supports his argument that you cannot be ultimately responsible for your actions.

William felt the weight of Mary’s accusatory glare. He wanted to remind her that she had never particularly liked the idea of voting for a Mormon, but he decided it wasn’t worth the argument, so he changed the subject. “I found out where I’ll be student teaching.”

C/O Penelope Hinton entered the east gate and C/O Rebecca Kaufmann requested a pat down search and C/O Hinton replied, “No, I don’t want my name in that every day”. C/O Kaufmann asked C/O Hinton a second time for a pat down search and she replied, “No, you asked for a pat down yesterday”. C/O Hinton looked at the Bubble Officer, C/O David Dunham and said, “What are you looking at”, and he replied, “You because your refusing a pat down”. C/O Kaufmann instructed C/O Dunham to open gate two and he did, allowing C/O Hinton to exit. C/O Kaufmann and C/O Dunham notified a supervisor after C/O Hinton had left the area.

Gwilan, the washwoman, and Johnsy all face physical and emotional hardships in the stories. After many years, the wrist that Gwilan broke in the cart crash develops arthritis; later, her husband, Torm, dies. The washwoman works an obviously strenuous job, but she also faces old age and ill health. At the same time, her son neglects her out of shame when his wealth could give her rest and security. Johnsy comes down with pneumonia and is overcome with depression. But all of these woman triumph over their troubles. Gwilan sings with new hope, the washwoman delivers her load and eventually joins her Savior in heaven, and Johnsy shakes herself out of her misery and recovers.

Jeffrey Sconce defines “paracinema” as “an extremely elastic textual category.” In addition to art film, horror, and science fiction films, paracinema catalogues "include entries from such seemingly disparate genres as badfilm, splatterpunk, mondo films, sword-and-sandal epics, Elvis flicks, government hygiene films, Japanese monster movies, beach party musicals, and just about every other historical manifestation of exploitation cinema from juvenile delinquency documentaries to soft-core pornography” (Sconce, 372). I believe that the movie Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! resembles this type of genre in a lot of ways. Written and directed by Russ Meyer, Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is basically a sexploitation “roughie” film that was released

Pike’s article shows a good argument against the idea of human free will. Pike makes his arguments by analyzing ideas from Boethius. Pike agrees that “if one collected together just the right assumptions and principals regarding God’s knowledge, one could derive the conclusion that if God exists, no human action is voluntary.” (Pike)

The result of fierce patent battle launched by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) against the iPhone maker targeting the company’s newest chips has left the company payable of more than 850 million dollars. Cupertino, California-based Apple denied any infringement and argued the patent is invalid, according to court papers. According to a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge William Conley, who is presiding over the case, Apple could be liable for up to $862.4 million in damages. He scheduled the trial to proceed in three phases: liability, damages, and finally, whether Apple infringed the patent willfully, which could lead to enhanced penalties.

In other words, even though character is innate in every person, it can also be shaped through the person’s life to become morally right.

John Lubbock, a British naturalist and politician, authored the quote, “Your character is what you yourself choose to make it.” I firmly believe that he is right in his writing of this quote. This quote’s meaning can be taken taken in a literal sense, but there is a lot of context which must be considered. There also exists the very precise wording that the author chose in his wording of this quote. There exists a lot of bias in the author’s writing of this quote, as he was a naturalist at the time of the nature versus nurture debate. I am on the author’s side and am a firm supporter in the meaning of this quote.

According to Aristotle, we are morally responsible for our actions. Through the analysis of notions and concepts such as responsibility in terms of voluntary/involuntary actions, incontinence, and intemperance, we can further understand Aristotle’s stance, which is that we are morally responsible for our actions, and character. I will not only be exploring Aristotle’s views, but also the views of Dr. Dian Hsieh, and Jonathan Barnes, who both reconstruct an argument for moral responsibility from Aristotle’s work. In addition, I will also contrast aspects of Aristotle’s view on moral responsibility, with Jean-Paul Sartre’s views on the matter as portrayed in Existentialism Is A Humanism, in an attempt to improve upon and reveal potential problems

This is not to say that a person’s environment isn’t highly influential in forming a person’s character, including one’s moral self. However there is always the possibility that the moral self will counteract with one’s environment, upbringing and personality. In a sense the moral self is able to overcome the pressures exerted on him by environmental factors which have influenced his character and personality, and become morally responsible by satisfying his moral self. This problem is not only addressed theologically, but also determinism has posed a problem with the physical, scientific approach, the biological and psychological approach and the philosophical approach.